Osborne tries to blame the EU for "taxes" - it doesn't charge any

Is the Chancellor hoping the public will forget he's responsible for raising taxes?

Over the next few years, we can expect the Conservatives and the right-wing press to take every opportunity to spread myths about the EU in order to win public support for David Cameron's madcap renegotiation strategy. A useful example of this tactic was offered by George Osborne during his interview with the BBC this morning. The Chancellor remarked that "a lot of big British businesses and small businesses came out last week and said actually one of Britain's problems are the taxes and regulations from Europe". 

There are many things that one can blame on the EU but "taxes" are not one of them, for the simple reason that it doesn't levy any. At no point in the history of European integration have national governments ever surrendered control of taxation to Brussels. As the EU's website helpfully explains:

This [taxation] is decided by your national government, not the EU.

Governments set tax rates on company profits, personal income, savings and capital gains (profits made from selling an asset, such as a house). The EU merely keeps an eye on these decisions to see they are fair to the EU as a whole.

This means ensuring national tax rules are consistent with the EU's goals of job creation and do not impede the free flow of goods, services and capital around the EU, or give businesses in one country an unfair advantage over competitors in another.

Moreover, national governments remain in control of raising taxes as EU law requires that no EU decisions on tax matters be taken unless all member countries are in unanimous agreement.

It's true that the introduction of VAT, which replaced the UK's existing consumption tax, the Purchase Tax, was a pre-condition of the UK joining the EEC in 1973, but since Osborne increased this tax from 17.5 per cent to an all-time high of 20 per cent in his 2010 "emergency Budget", that's presumably not what the Chancellor had in mind. 

With the UK in danger of an unprecedented triple-dip recession, it would be surprising if businesses weren't concerned about the tax burden. But unfortunately for Osborne, the only person to blame for that is him. 

Chancellor George Osborne takes part in a tour of the train wheel manufacturers Lucchini UK, at Trafford Park in Manchester earlier today. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Leaving the cleaning to someone else makes you happier? Men have known that for centuries

Research says avoiding housework is good for wellbeing, but women have rarely had the option.

If you want to be happy, there is apparently a trick: offload the shitwork onto somebody else. Hire cleaner. Get your groceries delivered. Have someone else launder your sheets. These are the findings published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, but it’s also been the foundation of our economy since before we had economics. Who does the offloading? Men. Who does the shitwork? Women.

Over the last 40 years, female employment has risen to almost match the male rate, but inside the home, labour sticks stubbornly to old patterns: men self-report doing eight hours of housework a week, while women slog away for 13. When it comes to caring for family members, the difference is even more stark: men do ten hours, and women 23.

For your average heterosexual couple with kids, that means women spend 18 extra hours every week going to the shops, doing the laundry, laying out uniform, doing the school run, loading dishwashers, organising doctors' appointments, going to baby groups, picking things up, cooking meals, applying for tax credits, checking in on elderly parents, scrubbing pots, washing floors, combing out nits, dusting, folding laundry, etcetera etcetera et-tedious-cetera.

Split down the middle, that’s nine hours of unpaid work that men just sit back and let women take on. It’s not that men don’t need to eat, or that they don’t feel the cold cringe of horror when bare foot meets dropped food on a sticky kitchen floor. As Katrine Marçal pointed out in Who Cooked Adam Smiths Dinner?, men’s participation in the labour market has always relied on a woman in the background to service his needs. As far as the majority of men are concerned, domestic work is Someone Else’s Problem.

And though one of the study authors expressed surprise at how few people spend their money on time-saving services given the substantial effect on happiness, it surely isn’t that mysterious. The male half of the population has the option to recruit a wife or girlfriend who’ll do all this for free, while the female half faces harsh judgement for bringing cover in. Got a cleaner? Shouldn’t you be doing it yourself rather than outsourcing it to another woman? The fact that men have even more definitively shrugged off the housework gets little notice. Dirt apparently belongs to girls.

From infancy up, chores are coded pink. Looking on the Toys “R” Us website, I see you can buy a Disney Princess My First Kitchen (fuchsia, of course), which is one in the eye for royal privilege. Suck it up, Snow White: you don’t get out of the housekeeping just because your prince has come. Shop the blue aisle and you’ll find the Just Like Home Workshop Deluxe Carry Case Workbench – and this, precisely, is the difference between masculine and feminine work. Masculine work is productive: it makes something, and that something is valuable. Feminine work is reproductive: a cleaned toilet doesn’t stay clean, the used plates stack up in the sink.

The worst part of this con is that women are presumed to take on the shitwork because we want to. Because our natures dictate that there is a satisfaction in wiping an arse with a woman’s hand that men could never feel and money could never match. That fiction is used to justify not only women picking up the slack at home, but also employers paying less for what is seen as traditional “women’s work” – the caring, cleaning roles.

It took a six-year legal battle to secure compensation for the women Birmingham council underpaid for care work over decades. “Don’t get me wrong, the men do work hard, but we did work hard,” said one of the women who brought the action. “And I couldn’t see a lot of them doing what we do. Would they empty a commode, wash somebody down covered in mess, go into a house full of maggots and clean it up? But I’ll tell you what, I would have gone and done a dustman’s job for the day.”

If women are paid less, they’re more financially dependent on the men they live with. If you’re financially dependent, you can’t walk out over your unfair housework burden. No wonder the settlement of shitwork has been so hard to budge. The dream, of course, is that one day men will sack up and start to look after themselves and their own children. Till then, of course women should buy happiness if they can. There’s no guilt in hiring a cleaner – housework is work, so why shouldn’t someone get paid for it? One proviso: every week, spend just a little of the time you’ve purchased plotting how you’ll overthrow patriarchy for good.

Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. Her website is here.